Stephen J Luen, Lauren C Brown, Courtney T van Geelen, Peter Savas, Roswitha Kammler, Patrizia Dell'Orto, Olivia Biasi, Alan S Coates, Richard D Gelber, Beat Thürlimann, Marco Colleoni, Gini F Fleming, Prudence A Francis, Meredith M Regan, Giuseppe Viale, Sherene Loi
{"title":"来自BIG 1-98和SOFT临床试验的人类表皮生长因子受体2低、激素受体阳性的早期乳腺癌的基因组特征和预后意义","authors":"Stephen J Luen, Lauren C Brown, Courtney T van Geelen, Peter Savas, Roswitha Kammler, Patrizia Dell'Orto, Olivia Biasi, Alan S Coates, Richard D Gelber, Beat Thürlimann, Marco Colleoni, Gini F Fleming, Prudence A Francis, Meredith M Regan, Giuseppe Viale, Sherene Loi","doi":"10.1200/PO-24-00599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low (HR+HER2-low) versus HR+HER2-zero early breast cancers have distinct genomic and clinical characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included HR+, HER2-negative early breast cancers from patients enrolled in the phase III, randomized BIG 1-98 and SOFT clinical trials that had undergone tumor genomic sequencing. Tumors were classified HR+HER2-low if they had a centrally reviewed HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 1+ or 2+ with negative in situ hybridization and HR+HER2-zero if they had an HER2 IHC score of 0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,795 tumors were evaluable for this study (BIG 1-98 n = 520, SOFT n = 1,275). The frequency of HER2-low tumors was 37% and 21% in the postmenopausal BIG 1-98 and premenopausal SOFT cohorts, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic variables between HER2-low and HER2-zero groups which was consistent across both trials. There was no significant difference in risk of distant recurrence for patients with HER2-low tumors versus HER2-zero tumors (5-year % distant recurrence-free 94.0% <i>v</i> 92.8%, <i>P</i> = .61, in BIG 1-98; 89.4% <i>v</i> 92.7%, <i>P</i> = .31, in SOFT, respectively). Somatic genomic profiles were similar with the exception of <i>MAP3K1</i> mutations which were more frequent in HER2-zero tumors (BIG 1-98 19% <i>v</i> 5%, SOFT 11% <i>v</i> 6%). Both <i>ERBB2</i> copy number and <i>ERBB2</i> gene expression abundance were significantly higher in HER2-low tumors compared with HER2-zero tumors; however, the absolute difference was small. Correlation between <i>ERBB2</i> copy number values and gene expression was modest (<i>r</i> = 0.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In two large clinical trials with centrally reviewed HER2 IHC, our findings do not support HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical or biologic entity among HR+HER2- early breast cancers. Absolute differences in median <i>ERBB2</i> copy number levels or gene expression are small and of unclear biologic relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":14797,"journal":{"name":"JCO precision oncology","volume":"9 ","pages":"e2400599"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835511/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genomic Characterization and Prognostic Significance of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Low, Hormone Receptor-Positive, Early Breast Cancers From the BIG 1-98 and SOFT Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen J Luen, Lauren C Brown, Courtney T van Geelen, Peter Savas, Roswitha Kammler, Patrizia Dell'Orto, Olivia Biasi, Alan S Coates, Richard D Gelber, Beat Thürlimann, Marco Colleoni, Gini F Fleming, Prudence A Francis, Meredith M Regan, Giuseppe Viale, Sherene Loi\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/PO-24-00599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low (HR+HER2-low) versus HR+HER2-zero early breast cancers have distinct genomic and clinical characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included HR+, HER2-negative early breast cancers from patients enrolled in the phase III, randomized BIG 1-98 and SOFT clinical trials that had undergone tumor genomic sequencing. Tumors were classified HR+HER2-low if they had a centrally reviewed HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 1+ or 2+ with negative in situ hybridization and HR+HER2-zero if they had an HER2 IHC score of 0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,795 tumors were evaluable for this study (BIG 1-98 n = 520, SOFT n = 1,275). The frequency of HER2-low tumors was 37% and 21% in the postmenopausal BIG 1-98 and premenopausal SOFT cohorts, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic variables between HER2-low and HER2-zero groups which was consistent across both trials. There was no significant difference in risk of distant recurrence for patients with HER2-low tumors versus HER2-zero tumors (5-year % distant recurrence-free 94.0% <i>v</i> 92.8%, <i>P</i> = .61, in BIG 1-98; 89.4% <i>v</i> 92.7%, <i>P</i> = .31, in SOFT, respectively). Somatic genomic profiles were similar with the exception of <i>MAP3K1</i> mutations which were more frequent in HER2-zero tumors (BIG 1-98 19% <i>v</i> 5%, SOFT 11% <i>v</i> 6%). Both <i>ERBB2</i> copy number and <i>ERBB2</i> gene expression abundance were significantly higher in HER2-low tumors compared with HER2-zero tumors; however, the absolute difference was small. Correlation between <i>ERBB2</i> copy number values and gene expression was modest (<i>r</i> = 0.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In two large clinical trials with centrally reviewed HER2 IHC, our findings do not support HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical or biologic entity among HR+HER2- early breast cancers. Absolute differences in median <i>ERBB2</i> copy number levels or gene expression are small and of unclear biologic relevance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e2400599\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835511/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-24-00599\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO precision oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-24-00599","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:探讨激素受体阳性,人表皮生长因子受体2-低(HR+ her2 -低)与HR+ her2 -零早期乳腺癌是否具有不同的基因组和临床特征。方法:本研究纳入了HR+, her2阴性的早期乳腺癌患者,这些患者参加了III期,随机BIG 1-98和SOFT临床试验,并进行了肿瘤基因组测序。如果肿瘤的HER2免疫组化(IHC)评分为1+或2+(原位杂交阴性),则将其分类为HR+HER2低;如果肿瘤的HER2免疫组化评分为0,则将其分类为HR+HER2零。结果:本研究共有1795个肿瘤可评估(BIG 1-98 n = 520, SOFT n = 1275)。在绝经后BIG 1-98和绝经前SOFT队列中,her2低肿瘤的发生率分别为37%和21%。在her2 -低和her2 -零组之间的临床病理变量没有显著差异,这在两项试验中是一致的。在BIG 1-98中,her2 -低肿瘤患者的远处复发风险与her2 -零肿瘤患者的远处复发风险无显著差异(5年无远处复发百分比为94.0% vs 92.8%, P = 0.61;89.4% vs 92.7%, P = 0.31)。体细胞基因组图谱相似,除了MAP3K1突变在her2 - 0肿瘤中更常见(BIG 1-98 19% vs 5%, SOFT 11% vs 6%)。her2低的肿瘤中ERBB2拷贝数和ERBB2基因表达丰度均显著高于无her2的肿瘤;然而,绝对差异很小。ERBB2拷贝数值与基因表达的相关性不大(r = 0.17)。结论:在两项集中回顾HER2免疫组化的大型临床试验中,我们的研究结果不支持HER2低水平乳腺癌在HR+HER2-早期乳腺癌中是一种独特的临床或生物学实体。ERBB2中位拷贝数水平或基因表达的绝对差异很小,且生物学相关性不明确。
Genomic Characterization and Prognostic Significance of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Low, Hormone Receptor-Positive, Early Breast Cancers From the BIG 1-98 and SOFT Clinical Trials.
Purpose: To investigate whether hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low (HR+HER2-low) versus HR+HER2-zero early breast cancers have distinct genomic and clinical characteristics.
Methods: This study included HR+, HER2-negative early breast cancers from patients enrolled in the phase III, randomized BIG 1-98 and SOFT clinical trials that had undergone tumor genomic sequencing. Tumors were classified HR+HER2-low if they had a centrally reviewed HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 1+ or 2+ with negative in situ hybridization and HR+HER2-zero if they had an HER2 IHC score of 0.
Results: A total of 1,795 tumors were evaluable for this study (BIG 1-98 n = 520, SOFT n = 1,275). The frequency of HER2-low tumors was 37% and 21% in the postmenopausal BIG 1-98 and premenopausal SOFT cohorts, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic variables between HER2-low and HER2-zero groups which was consistent across both trials. There was no significant difference in risk of distant recurrence for patients with HER2-low tumors versus HER2-zero tumors (5-year % distant recurrence-free 94.0% v 92.8%, P = .61, in BIG 1-98; 89.4% v 92.7%, P = .31, in SOFT, respectively). Somatic genomic profiles were similar with the exception of MAP3K1 mutations which were more frequent in HER2-zero tumors (BIG 1-98 19% v 5%, SOFT 11% v 6%). Both ERBB2 copy number and ERBB2 gene expression abundance were significantly higher in HER2-low tumors compared with HER2-zero tumors; however, the absolute difference was small. Correlation between ERBB2 copy number values and gene expression was modest (r = 0.17).
Conclusion: In two large clinical trials with centrally reviewed HER2 IHC, our findings do not support HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical or biologic entity among HR+HER2- early breast cancers. Absolute differences in median ERBB2 copy number levels or gene expression are small and of unclear biologic relevance.